Butterfly Table c. 1936

Curator: Alright, let's delve into this interesting piece. Editor: This is Lawrence Foster's "Butterfly Table," circa 1936, done in watercolor and drawing. It's so simply rendered, but I wonder... what catches your eye when you look at it? Curator: I’m drawn to the deliberate act of depicting a mundane object, specifically its material qualities and social function. Consider the "Butterfly Table" itself: the very term speaks to transformations and flexibility within the domestic sphere, suggesting labor saving for domestic work, with this design to collapse easily for storage when not in use.. Why was Foster choosing this, or asked to do this drawing, as a subject matter? Editor: So you think the *making* of this image itself comments on labor? Curator: Precisely. Watercolor, especially at this time, was accessible to many. Its perceived 'minor' status is vital. It questions the value we place on skill, time, and ultimately, the subject itself. Was it used for mass reproductions later? How would this shape perceptions of value then? Editor: That's a perspective shift for me. I hadn't considered watercolor as a democratic medium impacting perceived value like that. Curator: Think about how this image might circulate, reproduced for a Sears catalog perhaps. It democratizes the object itself, potentially increasing availability for a larger public, while simultaneously altering the art market due to reproductions. Editor: I hadn’t thought about its wider distribution and consumption like that. Fascinating. Curator: The true artistry might lie not in technical virtuosity, but rather in the thoughtful use of material and method. It opens questions about function and how items gain significance over time within cultures and subcultures. Editor: I think I’ll remember to question the context of artistic creation when I look at artworks now, because value judgements shift with the process itself.